Reality Check

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Just got this "e" from Mr. North, one of his last lines was permission to forward and since this comes from a free e-subscription and I'm stating FAIR USE DOCUMENT, (for educational purposes only), I don't think he'd mind you all seeing it. After all, you folks are my mailing list... (G)

Gary North's REALITY CHECK Issue No. 44 December 16, 1999

TWO WEEKS TO GO

Planes will not fall from the sky. That's because they will be on the ground. Nobody wants to fly. Airline after airline has cancelled its December 31/January 1 flights. Not enough demand. The best and the brightest say that y2k will be a non-event, but they are not booking flights. There is a lingering doubt about y2k. Nobody wants to talk about it.

According to a recent report, 25% of mutual fund money assets are now in cash. A friend of mine found this statistic cited on the December 14 Market Update & Commentary of the PIT BULL investment service (Henry Ford's). Ford thinks that Y2K will be a non-event. If brokers' phone lines are still open on January 3, he says, expect a wild boom, as this cash comes back into the stock market.

Is this really possible? A boom beginning on January 3? Well, if Y2K fears are really the main motivation behind a few percentage points of the supposed 25% of mutual fund assets that are in cash, it's possible. Investors could decide that the worst is over; therefore, everything bad is over; therefore, "Buy!" But is Ford's assessment accurate?

Tony Sagami, one of the nation's leading experts in mutual funds, says that the cash component of stock mutual funds is at an all-time low. Stock fund managers are betting the farm on the bull. He thinks it's a risky bet at this stage of the boom. So do I.

So, where is the 25% being held? By whom? The latest data that I can find are for October. Money market funds had $1.3 trillion in assets. Total mutual fund assets were $6.2 trillion. The cash component was 21.7%. A year earlier, the respective figures were $1.2 trillion and $5.5 trillion, or 21.8% -- essentially the same. See:

http://www.ici.org/facts_figures/trends_1099.html

This indicates that the public has decided to hold about 22% of its mutual fund assets in cash. This percentage may be a little higher, given the fact that some assets in the other types of funds are near-cash assets.

The question is: Will good news -- no meltdown -- by January 3 produce a mad dash to convert cash to stocks? Have investors been so fearful of Y2K since late 1998 that they will unload T-bills and buy stocks on January 3?

In March, the nation's mild Y2K fever broke. Since then, there has been little public concern about Y2K. Yet the change in opinion by, perhaps, 2% of the population on the margin has not led to a measurable shift into stock mutual funds.

What I find difficult to believe is that there are tens of billions of dollars invested in short-term money- market funds that will be shifted into stocks in the first week of January because of reduced Y2K fears. To believe this is to believe that significant assets were moved out of stock mutual funds into money-market funds as a hedge against Y2K. I see no evidence of such shift, late 1998 to late 1999.

Are U.S. investors really worried about a major break in the U.S. economy as a result of Y2K? Where is the evidence? What I see is apathy on a massive scale.

If you are using the Ursa fund in the Rydex family of funds to short the market, you know you're positioned for trouble in January -- worse than expected. If we get only minor disruptions in the first week, we could get a market surge, but I do not see how this by itself would produce a sustained rally.

For maximum safety in digital fund investing, you should be in a money market fund on December 31. Shorting this market is for those who think that Y2K will be worse than expected -- my view. But in the first two weeks of 2000, if there is no major disruption, then marginal money could go into stocks.

Let's see how the final week in December goes. I think Y2K fears will push the stock market down. If these fears are intense, the rebound in January, if any, will not be spectacular. But if the stock market is moving up on December 29, you may want to move from Ursa to a money market fund for a few weeks.

HOW BAD, HOW SOON?

Fact: the fundamental problems of Y2K must be solved. They have not been solved so far. There has been no testing. Fix-on-failure has become the watchword.

If the embedded chips collapse the system over the weekend, then electronic money will be at risk. You may be on the right side of the stock market transaction (short), but the institutions on the other side may not be able to meet the margin calls. You lose.

If things get by over the weekend, you could be on the wrong side, at least for a while. But I think the boom, if any, will not last long. The noise produced by Y2K will overwhelm systems.

My view is simple: my money should be in things, not digits. I am not in stocks for all of the conventional reasons, such as incredibly low earnings. This market is old, and it's into the irrational stage. People buy because they think they will make double-digit returns indefinitely. When everyone is an optimist, I remain on the sidelines. When a book predicting a Dow 30,000 finds buyers, I am a seller.

Y2K in such matters as oil imports, railroads (coal shipments), and international flights will still threaten the supply of goods even if phones are basically compliant and electricity stays up on January 1. The banks may not be into cross defaults in the first week of January.

Remember, it takes time to spread bad data. It takes time for bad data to be recognized as such by users, and then isolated to see where it's coming from. Good news on January 3 will mean only that the information-degradation effects have not had time to corrupt all systems.

We have to make decisions now. We face blind public optimism on all sides. We are swimming against the tide. The best and the brightest think we are wrong. But they are also proponents of investing in stocks at the end of a long boom, when the dividend return in stock mutual funds is under 2%.

The Federal Reserve System is pouring in money -- the highest rate on record. It is doing this to get the banks over the Y2K hump. Everyone accepts this. Investors believe that electronic money can solve problems created by broken code. They look at the increase in money and conclude: "This is only for a few months." But the dislocating effects of monetary inflation are real, whatever the reasons justifying it.

When it stops -- and Greenspan will stop it if Y2K does not immediately cause problems -- then the slowdown will create negative ripple effects. The boom-bust cycle cannot be avoided forever. (Ludwig von Mises, HUMAN ACTION, chap. 20).

THE CONSTANT STREAM OF UNVERIFIED GOOD NEWS

As far as any self-published document goes, almost every organization on earth is Y2K-ready. This is true of every government, too.

Most organizations are saying nothing -- a wise policy, I suppose. But those that say anything are optimistic.

As far as I can see, every government that has been singled out by the U.S. State Department as being behind has protested. All national governments are ready. It does not matter when they got started. They are all ready.

How? How did they do it? Where did they get the personnel?

What we are facing as decision-makers is a barrage of official reports that inform us that there is no Y2K problem in their domain. The problem is with The Other Guy Over There.

Within any industry, there is some trade association that speaks for most members. From these, we learn that only small organizations are facing Y2K problems. The big boys are on track.

As for testing, we hear almost nothing. A few tests suffice to provide a clean bill of health. There is nothing on parallel testing of systems over several months.

As for data exchanges, we hear almost nothing. Extensive tests are nowhere visible. In the financial services industry, which is supposedly the most advanced in its preparations, there were a few minimal tests among a handful of the largest organizations a year ago. These are all that underlie the "no problem" announcement.

As for embedded chips, we hear only a few voices calling for extensive testing. We are told that this used to be a problem, but the problem was exaggerated. The 50 billion chips are mostly all right, except for one percent (500 million) or two-tenths of one percent (100 million). Those failures will be minor. They will be fixed on failure. They can be re-set manually. As for the effects of 100 million failures, this is not worth discussing. As for how long it will take for certified technicians to fix 100 million failures, we are not told. No one asks. How many technicians are available to fix them? We are not told. I have seen no estimate.

And so it goes. The world is about to hit a digital wall, yet we are told that everything is at least 98% compliant. U.S. banks are 99.7% ready, the FDIC tells us. Japanese banks are 100% compliant, up from none last February, the Japanese government says. Impossible? Of course. But no one in authority says this in public.

It takes an act of will, extended over weeks and months in the face of government propaganda, to withstand this stream of propaganda. It is difficult for anyone to resist this barrage of propaganda. Almost no one does. What keeps me from becoming caught up in the optimism is this: I go on line every morning to post documents. Most of these documents do not verify the public's lack of concern. They may speak of 72 hours of problems, but I can still buy batteries at Wal-Mart. The public is not preparing for 72 hours of trouble.

Most people have made up their minds on Y2K. Most people believe it's nothing. Most of the others have never heard about it. So, we really are in the minority.

As I have said before, it's not the odds; it's the stakes. If you bet wrong, you literally could die. Even if you bet right, it's risky. If electrical power fails, either because of bad code or no fuel, then society falls. I have never said that the power must fail. Rick Cowles, whose judgment I trust, thinks the grid will survive. But he says it will be erratic. Blackouts and brownouts will be common.

My view is simple: I want verified evidence that systems are compliant and tested. But I can't get this. Neither can you. So, I must go on faith based on imperfect evidence. This leads me back to the extreme caution position. Why? Because the division of labor is digital, and the digits, as of today, are error-filled. The code is still broken.

How can people think that broken code will work as well as compliant code? How can they call this an information economy, and at the same time deny that incorrect information, worldwide, will create major disruptions? How can they cry out, "We can run it manually," when nothing has been run manually for a generation, and those technicians who ran things manually are long retired?

These are simple issues. They should raise a red flag. They do not raise even a yellow flag.

RED CROSS SHELTERS

I spoke with a Red Cross official two weeks ago. He told me that if we get a no-water, no-electricity crisis for ten consecutive days, the Red Cross will simply collapse. The ratio of volunteers to staffers is over 40- to-one. The volunteers will go home to protect their families.

The typical Red Cross shelter is a high school gymnasium. It can hold fewer than 1,000 people. It must have electricity, flush toilets, and running water. How many high school gyms are there in your city? How many have signed an agreement with the Red Cross to house refugees? You don't know. I asked. It is probably fewer than half a dozen in a city of a million people.

People will have to stay in their homes. There will be no place to house them. The great threat is water. If they cannot flush their toilets, their lifestyle changes in a matter of hours. If the fire department cannot hook hoses up to functioning fire hydrants, fires will spread uncontrollably. A modern city without functioning fire hydrants is a tinder box.

Take away water for a week, and urban middle-class man's world ends. The public grasps none of this. People cannot conceive of a social threat to their supply of comfort, let alone their safety.

On December 10, we were warned in a press release jointly issued by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for Y2K and Society that over half of U.S. cities have water systems that are not compliant. Worse, 85% of sewer systems have yet to be remediated. Within hours, a press release from the American Water Works Association assured us that all of our large cities are compliant.

You must decide who is telling the truth. It's very hard to protect yourself with 15 days to go. You can buy bleach. You can buy a 55-gallon drum to run a roof drain spout into. But will you? It looks goofy. Your neighbors may ask why.

If it was mandatory for every water utility to get compliant, then why is any urban resident confident that his city's utility has completed remediation and testing? Has he verified this? Millions have not. They trust the system. They are not interested in evidence. They are interested in avoiding change. The press release from the AWWA comforts them. Besides, most of them have never heard of the AWWA, nor do they think there is a problem.

If there were a fire that spread uncontrollably in a major city, where would the homeless be sent? It's winter. They cannot sit around on park benches. What would the authorities do with them? College dorms would be commandeered. Then hotels/motels. But what if there is no water, which is the reason why the fires spread?

We do not think of these problems because they cannot be solved within our comfort zones. People assume them away. But how valid is the evidence by which they are assumed away?

"AM I DOING THE RIGHT THING?"

You have no doubt asked yourself this question more than once. Your answer is probably something like this: "Well, I'm not willing to bet my life on propaganda. I have to do something to protect myself." So, you have reallocated your portfolio. You have moved from digital assets to non-digital.

Non-digital assets can be sold back (gold, silver), or spent (currency), or consumed directly (food storage), or used (tools). The market for non-digital assets is less highly developed. Transaction costs for selling are higher. But these assets will not lose as much of their value in an economic breakdown as digital assets will. The risk of owning them is lower.

Maybe you bought a water purifier. So, use it. You bought a sophisticated first aid kit. Learn how to use it. You bought gold coins. You are now less dependent on a financial system based on promises of outfits that you know cannot be trusted.

You have moved from reliance on an extreme division of labor to a moderate one -- 1965-era, perhaps. You have lowered your electronic return, but you have increased your diversification and your safety.

You have done this rationally, examining evidence, possibly daily. Your critics have looked at almost no evidence, and they have continued to believe in an economy that produces supposedly low-risk stock market returns of 20% per annum.

The first phase of the worst-case scenario will be visible on January 1: a collapse of the grid. Markets will not reopen. By January 3, there will be no water in our cities. The embedded chips and bad code will have done their work. Anyone who says this cannot happen is kidding himself. The evidence is not there. We do not know what the systems that rely on chips will do. We do know what some of the chips will do: fail.

If we get through the weekend, then the debate moves to the domino effect: noncompliant small businesses, noncompliant suppliers, noncompliant banks, noncompliant everything else. Other systems will just get noisy: the busy signal phenomenon.

Then the spread of bad data will produce its effects. The scary one is a cascading cross default of the financial industry: banks, mutual funds, commodity futures, and derivatives. Remember, the world is integrated. Defaults can take place outside of Canada and the U.S.

The best and the brightest do not believe any of this will happen. But they are not scheduling flights on December 31, either. They are hedging their bets.

I am hedging mine. It's just that mine are more comprehensively hedged. I regard the financial world as a large noncompliant airport. I do not intend to be on a plane scheduled for one.

You are probably hedged somewhere in between. Each person has a comfort zone, and is married to someone with a different one. Compromises must be made.

Ask yourself: Given the evidence you have read, is the case for Y2K optimism stronger than the case for pessimism? You have read postings on my site and other sites. You have read newsletters. You have read press releases and reports based on them. One fact stands out: the code was broken all over the world in 1997. It has not all be fixed. Almost none of it has been systematically tested beyond rolling a date forward.

We are flying almost blind, but not so blindly as the general public.

The modern division of labor rests on digits. The deadline is fixed. The code isn't.

We have two weeks.

(Because of the short time remaining, I authorize you to forward this report to your mailing list.)

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 16, 1999

Answers

Got any responses?

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 16, 1999.

Wow...Scary Gary really went up against the wall with this one. He makes a lot of good points, although his hard-core, "division of labor" Doomer position is going to turn off a lot of people.

I think he is right on target however, on the two major issues of electricity and overall interdependence. Like it or not, the world IS interconnected. At this point in time, that does not seem like such a smart situation to be in.

My greatest concern from Day One has been electricity. I am not qualified to discuss engineering specifics of the grid. Suffice to say that I hold the view that electrical failures will be the key to how bad other problems become. Spotty, brief outages or brownouts are one thing. A cascading grid failure that plunges 14 states into darkness indefinitely is something else altogether. THAT would probably mark TSHTF.

As Scary Gary said, we have no evidence to support these starry eyed claims of compliance. Given that sorry state of affairs, if you are starting to feel a measure of anxiety, don't feel out of place. I am too.

-- Irving (irvingf@myremarq.com), December 16, 1999.


Nice piece. Now I have a question:

Having been a software engineer/IS Manager/CIO etc. for 20 years I can understand the Y2k issue completely from the type of stuff I touch. But to me it would seem that the Y2K issue for embedded systems is only relevant for a limited period of time. I am willing to guess that most of these systems are tracking time for date calcuations for relatively short periods - i.e. few seconds to one month - and therefore date calculations will sort themselves out once all CMOS stored dates used in the embedded chip calculations have all moved to the 00 time frame, which I guess will be in about a month.

In that case would we not have problems until then, perhaps increasing as some ripple effects take effect, and then have them start to die down as we roll into February, and by mid February be over the worst of it? How bad the worst would be is another issue, but I'm trying to see what the time frame for disruptions would be regardless of the severity.

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), December 16, 1999.


Thanks, Patrick.

-- db (tomG@h.com), December 16, 1999.

Y2K Probation have you ever thought about a hobby?

-- (SgtHansSchultz@stalag13.com), December 16, 1999.


I find Gary North's piece simple, logical, and not that far out there. The only place at which he became a little overheated was where he declared that the grid would go and that the water would go down. It's absolutely possible, but not a certainty. However, I found this, on the whole, a moderate and modest statement of what is.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), December 16, 1999.

You people who make fun of people who prepare make me sick.

Pompous asses. If you are all-out competent and intelligent, how come you are working in the computer industry? Boring, common, stupid ass industry. Go out and do something on your own. Go out and break new ground. Losers. Computer geeks. This computer better work for me next year.

-- ;lkjadsf;ljkasdfjkl (had@enough.com), December 16, 1999.


Probation did your mom drink a low grade gasoline while she was pregnant with you?

-- (SgtHansSchultz@stalg13.com), December 16, 1999.

"In that case would we not have problems until then, perhaps increasing as some ripple effects take effect, and then have them start to die down as we roll into February."

IS...

....."Die down; interesting metaphor.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 16, 1999.


Y2k Pro makes a subtle point with his mockery, though. For those who agree with North's outlook to begin with, he's a smooth debater and builds his arguments carefully. Once you accept North's premises, everything follows logically and inevitably.

However, the real test of any analysis lies in the predictions it makes. And it certainly ought to be clear to anyone, however much they admire North, that his predictions have not only been failures without exception so far (a 2-decade period, by the way), but usually the *opposite* of this predictions has come true.

I certainly can't fault North for "failure to learn from his mistakes" since he's not really trying to predict the future, he's trying to *make* a future more to his liking. And his liking calls for a whole new civilization, based on the tenets of his religion. So anything he can do to help the current civilization collapse is fair game. It's obvious by now that computers mishandling dates isn't the answer, but enough variation in normal public behavior *anticipating* computer problems might do the trick. For North, it's worth a try.

However, I can only shake my head in wonder at the astounding ability some people have shown to be able to forget every failed prediction and *continue* to believe North is playing with an honest, unstacked deck. These people have made North wealthy, of course, but even those who haven't contributed to his Cause (like Patrick, maybe) seem able to regard North's numbingly consistent wrong predictions as a "reality check". And when this hilarious record of error is laid before them even a little bit, they attack the messenger viciously. Is it any wonder psychologists have started to show interest in the phenomenon of y2k fanaticism?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 16, 1999.



Ah, I see the forum censors don't want us to see North's embarrassing track record. Why, we might harbor politically incorrect suspicions if we're exposed to such heresy. That is, those not capable of thinking for themselves (by definition, those who disagree with the censors) might be led astray, I suppose.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 16, 1999.

"but even those who haven't contributed to his Cause (like Patrick, maybe) seem able to regard North's numbingly consistent wrong predictions as a "reality check"."

Flint...

.....I don't presume to regard anything with this title, this is the title of the article as presented by Mr. North, as in Reality Check # 44. There were forty-three preceding articles of the same title in ascending order, and many people have come to recognize them by that name. When you presume to know someone else's thoughts or intentions, you assume too much, sir.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradalll.com), December 16, 1999.


Flint -- You're ... right ... again !!!! How do you manage it? It's just ... astounding! How can anyone be right all the time? Yet, you are. Awesome. Without you to help deprogram us, where would we be? Thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), December 16, 1999.

Big Dog:

You're welcome. Glad to be of assistance. I can see that you're learning from my efforts, since you're right this time. Keep up the good work.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 16, 1999.


Flint -- Your commendations are music to my ears. I am not worthy. I am not worthy. I am not worthy ....

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), December 16, 1999.


Flint and Y2K Pro: This is a Year 2000 problem, not a Year 1999 problem. Any predictions made by anyone for 1999 are worthless in the context of a Year 2000 problem; it's what happens next year (and I mean all next year, or at least the first six months of it) that is important.

Furthermore, even the little boy who cried wolf was right sooner or later, only no one believed him because he had been wrong so often before. Kinda like your attitude toward Gary North.

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.com), December 16, 1999.


So why don't you enlighten us, Mr. Flint or Big Dog with your predictions, carefully laid out and flawless of course so we, who are so far astray may have the pleasure to pick them appart. At least North has the courge to make them. Do you? (And BTW spare us a load of generalities that we don't need to hear from you to know will be correct).

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), December 16, 1999.

Re: Gary North... Once you accept his assumptions, even a madman seems reasonable

A history of North's failed predictions

-- CD (not@here.com), December 17, 1999.


IS,

really like your attitude and the way you think regarding the cabal, TPTB, disinformation... etc x3...

your comments...

"Having been a software engineer/IS Manager/CIO etc. for 20 years I can understand the Y2k issue completely from the type of stuff I touch. But to me it would seem that the Y2K issue for embedded systems is only relevant for a limited period of time. I am willing to guess that most of these systems are tracking time for date calcuations for relatively short periods - i.e. few seconds to one month - and therefore date calculations will sort themselves out once all CMOS stored dates used in the embedded chip calculations have all moved to the 00 time frame, which I guess will be in about a month.

In that case would we not have problems until then, perhaps increasing as some ripple effects take effect, and then have them start to die down as we roll into February, and by mid February be over the worst of it?"

I wish you were correct, but you are not.

I'll tell you why.

Consider an oil refinery - in the USA to make it easy... dependent on many things but predominantly 3, electricity, embebbed chips, personnel (humans)...

if absence of 1 or 3 we have major problems ( well, maybe not 3 for a while, maybe it's that automated - i doubt it...)

embeddeds - assuming a failure rate of (at a low) .01 to .05 we are going to encounter problems... some may be inconsequential, but according to Mr. Murphy some will be ball-busters...

In other words some will take OUT a refinery... think about it, how do you repare, where do you get the expertise, the vendors of the chips will be swamped, they may ba awol too, all the xxx factors come into play... a refinery restart is a very delicate affair not undertaken lightly, with specialist crews... how do you do it if a similar problems hits all refining states at the same time? Some chip errors will cause untold damage - how do you get by thsi?

this is one refinery...

extrapolate worldwide...

in 1973 we had a 5-7% reduction in crude Oil which put THE WORLD in to a recession...

this time you have the POTENTIAL for catastrophe - that is - unprecedented...

I'm trying to say IS that you are wrong, in many industries an embedded chip that screws up and bypasses any safety fallbacks can be catastrophic - can be another Bophal or Chernobyl or 3 mile Island -

don't kust think about refineries

i'm more concerned about Nukes...

same technology

you get the picture...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 17, 1999.


Even if someone is wrong 100% of the time, at least Gary still has the courage to try again. As they say better to have tried and failed than to have never tried. Edison tried over 6,000 times to get the light bulb to work. I am not supporting nor critising Gary North, but I do find that all of you critics won't put your own money where your mouth is. You obviously don't even have the courage to state your own convictions and let them be scrutinzied. If you have something more mature to contribute, rather than critisizing others for something you don't have the courge to do yourself, then lets hear it otherwise grow up while you do learn from someone who is not afraid of failing. And failing publicly. Its what makes a man a man in the end.

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), December 17, 1999.

Andy:

Thanks, I see your point. I'm not an expert and just posted a thought I had.

I think we cross posted, else I would have inlcuded my reply to you in my last post.

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), December 17, 1999.


Thanks IS - my point as you know is that yes, many embedded failures will be inconsequential and can be fixed and backed-out, a proportions will lead to disaster/tragedy/ who knows what.

As an aside what I am hearing from unconfirmed but reliable sources is potentially, well, I'm at a loss for words.

All the happy happy media spin coupled with leaks about bunkers and Martial Law should give you a clue...

later,

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 17, 1999.


Andy:

Oh come on, don't leave us hanging there. Spill the beans.

BTW do you have any info if the letter referred to in the following thread ever got published or if the whole story was a joke?

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0021bM

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), December 17, 1999.


IS

no I don't - have just read the thread that you gave me and I am none the wiser... there is so much spin and disinformation going around...

i will tell you what i DO know however - i am probably repeating myself but go and read in the archives my "VISA is toast" and follow up banking threads on this matter -

the whole system is at risk... we have come VERY close more than once in the last 30 years or so to financial calamity - i wish it had happend *then* as the fallout would not be so bad *now* - however... we are on a rod which is ending in a 100 yard skid mark at a precipice.. and we don't have ABS 'cos the chip don't work

and the 'mericans driving the car when they realise it's too late don't know cadence braking so tey'll just freeze and stomp their foot on that that brake pedal and there will be a 200 yard skid, with much gyrations of the steering wheel to no effect------

goodnight Vienna...

I'm sorry DS I cannot reveal anything - I've known this for 2 years or so, the last few weeks have jsut filled in the stark truth of what I and the likes of gary North have known all along.

Hey - Gary's version of christianity sucks - however, he's right this time.

apologies for spelling etc. i'm winging it as usual...

last run to Sam's tomorrow!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 17, 1999.


About 10 years ago, I took a senior year, undergraduate business course at the local university in Organizational Management. Once a week we viewed a video produced by the American Management Association, if I remember right.

Anyway, the purpose of these videos were to illustrate bold new approaches that various Fortune 100 companies were following to improve productivity and decrease overhead operating expenses. As any businessperson can tell you, one of the largest (if not THE largest) business expenses is staffing payroll and benefit packages.

One of the videos highlighted "Bradley Controls." In the video they detailed a manufacturing facility in the upper Midwest that produced over 100,000 controls, regulators, timers, etc a day. Bradley's products are used, among a wide variety of other users, to control, monitor, and regulate a wide variety of processes in the energy, petro-chemical, manufacturing, and service sectors. The hallmark here was that a 2 million square foot extremely high-tech factory only had a total of 50 employees. Everything was automated.

Robots shuffled parts and materials into the assembly areas, automated assembly lines requiring no employee intervention from start to finish. Other robots removed finished product from the assembly line, individually packaged it, packed into storage/shipping containers and stored into warehousing bins. When a shipping order was processed, another dedicated set of robots would locate, retrieve, and deliver to the shipping dock the correct part in the correct quantity for shipment.

Human employees filled managerial, technical maintenance and repair (including programming of automation systems), clerical, and dock (truck loading) operations only.

The video was already probably at least 5 years old when I viewed it.

How far has industry progressed since then?

(Taking into account that that factory is most assuredly wall to wall embeddeds, IF still in operation, of course.) What does this degree of dependency upon the use of embeddeds in a manufacturing concern mean in the y2k scenario?

Most disturbing, considering the nature of Bradley's product, and other corporations using similar devices, what will they mean for the production of replacements in a large scale failure of embedded systems?

I'm just absently pondering the unponderable ...

-- hiding in plain (sight@edge. of no-where), December 17, 1999.


Are ya sure it was "Bradley" and not "Bailey"?? now Mannesman??

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), December 17, 1999.


Chuck,

Probably Bradley of Allen-Bradley fame. A paper mill I worked for was riddled with their stuff.

-- Coder (Coder@Work.Now), December 17, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ